.357 Magnum S&W or Ruger; comparison?
- Thread starter topflan
- Start date
The K-frames are far from weak. They have a slight issue with but one bullet weight....125gr ammo. You can shoot hot stuff through them all day long, and it is doubtful you will ever see any wear. Shoot enought hot 125gr, and you will get some erosion and possibly stretch, but its doubtful.
I agree. All the hype about the "weak" K-frames are a joke. If they are so weak, and can't hold up to the .357 mag, then why does S&W still make a .357 mag J-frame? It's OK to buy it, as long as you don't shoot it?
Anyway, my first handgun I bought when I turned 21 (I had a LOT of them before through my father) was a 3" M65. Before I even fired a shot through it, I had Karl Sokol of Chestnut Mountain Sports bob the hammer, install an orange inlay in the front sight, buff the serrations off the trigger, round the cylinder release, chamfer the chambers and install hard nylon, smooth grips. I shot that revolver almost exclusively for many years, almost completely with 158gr magnum reloads. I did put probably 500 rounds of 125gr Federal JHP's through it for qualifications, but that's it.
I was told my my Chief at the time that I could no longer carry it on or off-duty due to its modifications. He only allowed stock guns. So, I traded it. I wish I never did now, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. After over 10,000 rounds, it was still tight and very accurate. I sure miss that revolver.
If anyone out there, probably in the NH/VT area has a 3" S&W M65 SN BPS1861, please contact me, I would trade a practically new one for it to get it back!
I agree. All the hype about the "weak" K-frames are a joke. If they are so weak, and can't hold up to the .357 mag, then why does S&W still make a .357 mag J-frame? It's OK to buy it, as long as you don't shoot it?
Anyway, my first handgun I bought when I turned 21 (I had a LOT of them before through my father) was a 3" M65. Before I even fired a shot through it, I had Karl Sokol of Chestnut Mountain Sports bob the hammer, install an orange inlay in the front sight, buff the serrations off the trigger, round the cylinder release, chamfer the chambers and install hard nylon, smooth grips. I shot that revolver almost exclusively for many years, almost completely with 158gr magnum reloads. I did put probably 500 rounds of 125gr Federal JHP's through it for qualifications, but that's it.
I was told my my Chief at the time that I could no longer carry it on or off-duty due to its modifications. He only allowed stock guns. So, I traded it. I wish I never did now, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. After over 10,000 rounds, it was still tight and very accurate. I sure miss that revolver.
If anyone out there, probably in the NH/VT area has a 3" S&W M65 SN BPS1861, please contact me, I would trade a practically new one for it to get it back!
ROADKING33
New member
You can't go wrong with either choice. I have amodel S&W 686(.357) 6" barrel and am going to buy a model 66 .357 2.5" barrel this week. I originally was going to buy a GP100 and then after comparing the guns side by side I chose the smith because of it's looks, grip and trigger pull. I also like the feel of the Smith better in my hand.
BusGunner007
New member
If the S&W K-Frame is so strong, why'd they make the L-Frame?
Because they wanted to market a service revolver that COULD take a "steady diet" of high-powered .357 without failing as soon as the K-Frame.
The J-Frame is intended to take the .357 ammo, whatever you feed it, with the unspoken and ought-to-be-obvious reasoning that you aren't going to be shooting it with full-bore .357 on a steady basis.
The RUGER'S, on the other hand, are designed to be able to take the full-bore ammo until your hand breaks...because that will happen before the gun does.
At least, that's my perception of this debate.
Because they wanted to market a service revolver that COULD take a "steady diet" of high-powered .357 without failing as soon as the K-Frame.
The J-Frame is intended to take the .357 ammo, whatever you feed it, with the unspoken and ought-to-be-obvious reasoning that you aren't going to be shooting it with full-bore .357 on a steady basis.
The RUGER'S, on the other hand, are designed to be able to take the full-bore ammo until your hand breaks...because that will happen before the gun does.
At least, that's my perception of this debate.
Ramcharger
New member
Ruger. the abrahms tank of pistols.
I got a safe full of ruger 357s and one SW m19. my SW is real purty but I hate cleaning it. it usualy involves searching the carpet with a magnet to find that itty bitty screw. My gp 100 usually just get sprayed with carb cleaner and then relubed and shes good to go.
I got a safe full of ruger 357s and one SW m19. my SW is real purty but I hate cleaning it. it usualy involves searching the carpet with a magnet to find that itty bitty screw. My gp 100 usually just get sprayed with carb cleaner and then relubed and shes good to go.
The Body Bagger
New member
A forged Steel frame S&W 686 over a casted GP100. If you really really want to see what the difference is, go to your local shop and work the actions of the two side by side. Then look at the overall finish of the product. Want real strength AND quality? Get yourself a N framed S&W M27 or M28, nothing Ruger has ever made can even hope to compare with either.